D&D 4E 4e: the new paradigm

[I'm A Banana]

The difference is where you start.

True 'nuff.

By the same respect, 3E often says something like, "Unless you have 20 ranks in Climb, you can't do it." Whereas, 4E, at least as far as skills are concerned, says, "Give it a try, you can do it slow and safe, or fast and risky."

Indeed. This is part of the reason why, though it seems 4e's focus won't generally gel with me, the skill system is one of those parts that I'm kind of a fan of.

 

[The_Gneech]

This is the first 4E discussion I've seen that actually gave me some food for thought -- so thanks to the OP and all commenters!

Anyway, my thoughts on the matter...

Why not let the designers explain that mysterious and new paradigm?

Addendum: The warlock is evidence of a philosophical shift within D&D R&D. When we did the 3.0 classes, we sort of asked ourselves "What would a barbarian be like?" and "What would a ranger be like?" The warlock arises from a different sort of question: "How can we design a class that provides this-or-that game experience for the player?" The warlock's not the only class like that, but it's a clear example.

I think, for me, that this is exactly where the hurt is coming from. 3.0 was the first version of D&D that I actually liked as a game system, because it was the first time I felt like the rules were designed to support the "reality" of the game, instead of the other way around.

Granted, 3E's "reality" had a lot of strange artifacts because it was carrying the baggage of previous editions' contortions to make a setting that made sense within the context of their rules -- but the core desire at least was there. The reports I've read of 4E sound like bizarre mechanical constructs being smoothed out by a bit of rhetorical handwavium. Some of that is necessary in any RPG context, I know -- but in my opinion it should be MINIMIZED whenever possible, not be made the foundation of the game's philosophy!

Remember in 3E discussions when people were goofing on the Phantom Fungus, a monster which was clearly created to fill a CR gap for "a low level monster with invisibility" but had precious little reason to exist otherwise? What I've seen of 4E, the whole game is being built that way. Not, "Okay, we've got a warrior, what would his abilities be?" but "Okay, we need somebody who can absorb damage -- we'll give him DR a certain number of times per encounter and call him the 'warrior'."

It is, to my way of thinking, exactly backwards from how RPG's should be structured.

-The Gneech

 

[Thyrwyn]

This is the first 4E discussion I've seen that actually gave me some food for thought -- so thanks to the OP and all commenters!

I agree, it has been an interesting discussion.

Remember in 3E discussions when people were goofing on the Phantom Fungus, a monster which was clearly created to fill a CR gap for "a low level monster with invisibility" but had precious little reason to exist otherwise?

This sums up the rational for every evil humanoid in the cosmology: orcs, kobolds, gnolls, goblins, bugbears, etc. . . . could all be summed up as "x hd bad-guy with [picka]-vision".

What I've seen of 4E, the whole game is being built that way. Not, "Okay, we've got a warrior, what would his abilities be?"

With you so far. . .

but "Okay, we need somebody who can absorb damage -- we'll give him DR a certain number of times per encounter and call him the 'warrior'."

See, this is not how I see it at all. The way I see it they said "If we wanted a warrior, what could he do that would make the player feel like they were playing a warrior? What do warriors do, and how can we let the players have their characters do that?"

Getting back to the monsters (glad you brought them up), look at the new Kobolds:
Right awway, they are mechanically different than Goblins or Orcs - they are given abilities like "Mob Attack" not because the designers said "hey, we need a low level monster with "Mob Attack"," but because mob attack fits the Kobold "feel". You don't need a lenghty write up of racial tactics and preferences - it is right there in the mechanics. Even if the players can't remember what they look like or what they're called - they will remember "oh yeah, these are the guys who like to gang up on you . . ."

 

[BryonD]

Getting back to the monsters (glad you brought them up), look at the new Kobolds:
Right awway, they are mechanically different than Goblins or Orcs - they are given abilities like "Mob Attack" not because the designers said "hey, we need a low level monster with "Mob Attack"," but because mob attack fits the Kobold "feel". You don't need a lenghty write up of racial tactics and preferences - it is right there in the mechanics. Even if the players can't remember what they look like or what they're called - they will remember "oh yeah, these are the guys who like to gang up on you . . ."

And I really don't care for that at all. Mechanically bolted on flavor is not a substitute for a good DM. Flexibility is vastly better, IMO, than "these are the ones that mob you".

 

[Mistwell]

In the most pro-4e site going the positive only outdoes the negative by 2 to 1.
What fraction of the fan base does WotC think is a good idea to get rid of?

This idea that this is "the most pro-4e site" is unfounded and not relevant given the numbers involved with many other sites.

As for 2 to 1, it's 1 in 4 that agreed with the OP. So the question is, what portion of those 1 in 4 already decided against 4e aside from this issue, and what portion of those 1 in 4 saying "it hurts" are also saying "but not enough to dissuade me from 4e"?

I think losing 20% is a given, and the plan is to gain more than that loss in new players and returning players. I don't have a firm answer to those questions, but I do think losing 20% is to be expected no matter what the new edition looks like, at least initially.

 

[The_Gneech]

With you so far. . .See, this is not how I see it at all. The way I see it they said "If we wanted a warrior, what could he do that would make the player feel like they were playing a warrior? What do warriors do, and how can we let the players have their characters do that?"

I'd like to see that, really I would. But what do, say, warlords do? Form a mighty horde and rampage across the countryside, not randomly glue enemies to the floor ("Pin the Foe"). And the Warlord is a renamed Marshal, which makes even less sense. Marshals rally the troops, okay I can grok temporary hp and morale bonuses -- but again, pinning enemies?

It just seems a strange and arbitrary effect, pulled out of a hat, assigned to a guy called "Warlord," and given an offhand justification ("Sure, the commander guy arranged for his allies to keep the enemy from escaping, that's it!"). Assuming some analog to Attacks of Opportunity are still around and the situation (both being adjacent to the foe) comes up again, the Warlord's ally is still able to attempt an AoO to keep the foe from running anyway as part of the larger framework -- why not build on that for a power that at least makes sense?

This is just a single example, I don't want to let things get sidetracked into the merits of the "Pin the Foe" ability. My point is that it sure feels to me like the devs came up with something that would be a useful combat effect ("keep enemy from moving"), then grafted it onto a class.

I guess this is what people are referring to when they complain about 4E looking "boardgamey." I'm hoping that in actual practice it doesn't come off that way ... as it is, there are a few items in Star Wars Saga Edition that smell of "effect-driven justification" and it seems like 4E is just taking that (which I consider a weakness) and running to new heights with it.

Getting back to the monsters (glad you brought them up), look at the new Kobolds:
Right awway, they are mechanically different than Goblins or Orcs - they are given abilities like "Mob Attack" not because the designers said "hey, we need a low level monster with "Mob Attack"," but because mob attack fits the Kobold "feel".

Er ... not to me it doesn't. Kobolds are those crafty little buggers with traps all over the place. Goblins mob.

-The Gneech

PS: Yes, I mangle metaphors. It's fun!

 

[Mistwell]

No more meaning than the rest of ENWorld polls.

Yes, there is a new paradigm, the designers have admitted as much. Those who say there isn't are really ignoring the express statements of those who are making the game. I mean, I guess they could be mistaken?

I think most people agree there is "a" new paradigm. The difference is, the specific "new paradigm" being described in this thread does not match the new paradigm the designers have admitted to, in the opinion of many.

 

[TwoSix]

Well, that is why.

3e vaguely says: "This is who I am. Therefore, I do that." Build a character, take an action.

4e vaguely seems to say: "I do that. That must mean I am this." Take an action, resolve it in-character.

Aside from 4e seeming backwards to me, I do think the weight is a bit off. Coming at D&D from an acting background, it's very, very important for me to have a believable character to play. That's a good portion of the FUN in D&D for me. 4e's weight being more on what happens than who it happens to seems to be removing some of that fun in the hopes that more people will have fun doing things than being things, without getting rid of being things but perhaps having some blocks in the way for those eager to be things (just as 3e didn't get rid of doing things, but perhaps had some blocks in the way).

The blocks, I'm guessing, is that you can't fully immerse in a character because you have to involve yourself in the combat "probability cloud" effect? Where you can't be sure what happened till it is actively resolved?

 

[I'm A Banana]

The blocks, I'm guessing, is that you can't fully immerse in a character because you have to involve yourself in the combat "probability cloud" effect? Where you can't be sure what happened till it is actively resolved?

Basically, yeah, that's one of the big ones. It feels, as the Gneech put it, backwards. I feel like I should decide what happens, and then resolve that based on what my character is actually capable of, rather than deciding what my character was capable of as a side effect of what the rules describe.

I should be telling the game what is has to roll in order to make sense of my desires. I shouldn't have to be making sense of what the game tells me to roll.

I'm not a purist on this position (most people aren't), but 4e goes too far from this position for me to get totally behind it.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I'd like to see that, really I would. But what do, say, warlords do? Form a mighty horde and rampage across the countryside, not randomly glue enemies to the floor ("Pin the Foe"). And the Warlord is a renamed Marshal, which makes even less sense. Marshals rally the troops, okay I can grok temporary hp and morale bonuses -- but again, pinning enemies?

It just seems a strange and arbitrary effect, pulled out of a hat, assigned to a guy called "Warlord," and given an offhand justification ("Sure, the commander guy arranged for his allies to keep the enemy from escaping, that's it!"). Assuming some analog to Attacks of Opportunity are still around and the situation (both being adjacent to the foe) came up again, the Warlord's ally would still be able to attempt an AoO to keep the foe from running anyway as part of the larger framework.

No, the entire class seems to me to be designed from the point of view of "What cool things could you do if you were 'The Ultimate Tactical Genius'? You could arrange it so that your allies could prevent the enemy from easily escaping. You could move your allies into more tactically helpful locations. You could motivate your allies to keep going despite their wounds. You could coordinate it so that all your allies charge at the same time as a group instead of one at a time. Now, if you were to name a class that fights side by side with his allies, coming up with tactics on the fly but still being strong and tough and a good fighter themselves...what would you call it? To me that brings to mind the an Orc Warlord leading his troops into battle. Even if it is only a small Warband."

All of those sound like appropriate effects for a tactician/warrior to me. But how do you simulate in a turn based game that a certain tactic helps a party without simply giving numerical bonuses(which are pretty boring and bland)?

Seriously, though, if tactics like that were as easy to learn and do as you are suggesting(the Warlord used his power once, you now all have the equivalent of a feat's worth of power forever) then:
a) There would be no reason to have a leader class ever, since they might as well be fighters who know all sorts of abilities for free
b) You should give pretty much every feat to all fighters in 3.5 edition. After all, most of them are extremely easy to learn, like the one that lets you make a shield wall...once you've seen someone do it once, you should get them free.

Either that or we accept that the Warlord is just one step above everyone else in terms of tactics. He has a better eye for the exact moment to strike and picks up on enemy body language and the like better. It requires him to stand there and wait for the exact moment and yell out "Now!" when a lesser man would have missed the opportunity by just hesitating half a second too long.